High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri G Balasubramanyam vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri G Balasubramanyam vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
3'I--~4}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTECE c R KONARAsv'¢AM§L  A

CRIMINAL PETITION NO5251 Or--?::d'1o{AN.,O   

BETWEEN:

1.

SRLG BALASUBRAMANYAM   
S/O SRLB GOVINDA swA'Nv NAIDLJV   "
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS " ' '  -

SRLB GOVINDA_S'W_'AMY''NA1'D[; .' 
S/O BALAPPALNATDIJ  1   
AGED ABOUT 60 ';<fE_A.Rs  _  
SMT.GOWRAVMM--A?;_:,. 3 V .  
W/O BvLVG'OvLNLf2A SWAMY.N'AIDU 
AGEDABOUT 5€:¥..EARS"«._ . '

ALL ARERESIDING AT N1O';..334"/4

7?" CROSS ,,BHuvAN E'::T1LewA'RI NAGAR

BSK,II--.I sTAGE..,., BANGALORE ~-- 560 085
  " A ..PETITIONERS

(AB¥_'sRj1':B_VN BIRANTNATAYA, ADV)

A AND:

 THE s'uiATE OF KARNATAKA
 REBTD BY CHANNAMMANAKERE

  A.c;_HL:.;<ATTu POLICE, BANGALORE

93

$%MT.G JYOTHI

 ~-W/O SRI G BALASUBRAMANYAN

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/A NO.28, BALAJI CROSS

G/'



BSK III STAGE, KATHRIGUPFQA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRIYUTHS:B RAJASUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP FOR R1,
M SUDHAKAR, ADV FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 _CO4’DE’*-QIZVK.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH TH-E
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN CR.NO.84/2008 BYE”, THE. Iigf
RESPONDENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED'””=I.NTO”u.C,C.__
NO.14195/2008 AGAINST THE PETITIONER_STPEi\!DING ON ‘THE FILE

OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE.

THIS CRLP IS COMING on FO’R,_ADMIS$ION Tei”s;oA_§r,

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ToRo£E ¢

Petitioners and his Cou~nTsei’–s_ai%ei. pfesent.._ Respondent
No.2 and his Counseiare presé’ritf:

2. it-ea’rne’d IHighiAVCoI_oi’rt:”(got/ernment Pieader submits
that suitable ordef r’na3C/-Vbe’~.passIed.

‘ faffjdavitwof second respondent is filed. It is

state’d:_Ci’n__pai*a:”‘4:_off’_th’e affidavit that the deponent 3yothi who

_responden__t ‘No.2 does not wish to prosecute the case in

VsGi\lo..8V-4″/2008, subsequently registered as c.c.

Ne..i4iss,*’2oo8. 2/’

4. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent

No.2. This is a matrimonial dispute and the wife wantssjto

settle the matter and in order to encourage the V.

arrived at between the husband and wife,

deserves to be allowed.

5. In the result, I pass the
0 RV» ix it

a) The Criminal P:’etVitionirrl’i’s inéteims of the
affidavit fiied

b) Consequeiwnjtly, on the file of

hereby quashed.

Sdi-3
Judd?